I am confused by too many trusts. The PERSON named on the complaint which brings a case to court is the cestui que vie trust granted by the state at the live person's birth. The live person is in fact the decedent whose death gives rise to the trust, which holds title to the assets in the trust for the benefit of the decedent's estate. Now, you come to court as a live person, you make a special limited appearance by absolute ministerial right under the First Judicial Act of 1789 Rule E(8), declaring that you are in fact alive, and sui juris, and you are claiming your estate, as the natural Executor of your estate. Whether the estate contains legal title or equitable title is not relevant; whatever it contains is yours, as, according to the revisions made by Charles II in 1666, the 'dead' could reappear and claim their estate, collapsing the trust. Now, as executor, you would be willing to assign the judge as trustee temporarily, so he can handle the presentment. The court, being an Article I court, and a corporation, cannot contract with you, the live person (which is why you must make a ministerial appearance - you have no standing in an Article I court, only the NAME does).

No fictional entity can have judicial authority over a live person; the Article I court is an administrative agency for a corporation (the state or the federal government), and it can only contract with and administer contracts between corporations. This is why it only administers municipal law which, the SC has ruled: "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not for humans/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process ... Rodriques vs. Ray Donovan (US Department of Labor) 769 F 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). You as a live person have a right to trial in an Article III court, where the Constitution still matters, you have common law rights, and the judge swears an oath to God (and the case is decided by a jury of live people). For most of these administrative presentments (speeding, running red lights, etc) you could not be brought before an Article III court, because there must be a cause of action, and these 'violations' of municipal codes do not qualify as causes in an Article III court, where for instance you have an inalienable right to travel freely in the country of your birth. And no state may pass a law that makes the pursuit of an inalienable right into a crime.

I understand the concept of God granting the usufruct of his Creation, which supercedes the state's claim that they granted the usufruct. Isn't the better path to simply take the live person out of the jurisdiction of the court, and take the NAME with you? ie, deny them the right to contract with your trust. This is the path to re-establish common law, which is critical to the prosperity of civilization. We must resist political law, which is contrary to God's law. You can still take full liability for your actions; who brings this claim that they have been damaged? How has the King's peace been harmed if I stop for a red light, then drive carefully through it, not impeding the flow of traffic? (happens all the time: I ride a 500cc bike, and it does not weigh enough to trigger those automatic light changers). The state intended to make you a slave, administered by Roman courts through contracts, so they can apply all their trivial and invasive political law to you, when they granted the CQVtrust. This plan is wrecked if you claim your estate and take your rightful place as Executor of the estate identified by NAME, thus taking yourself out of their jurisdiction and re-establishing your common law rights.